In the work of scientists, and specifically evolutionary psychologists, there are two unstated presuppositions that make their often elegant, jewel-like conclusions less valuable or useful.

The first presupposition is the usually unstated position that regarding consciousness, a larger consciousness can be assumed to be not present.  This potentially influences theorizing outcomes.  There is a heavy negative emotional valence assigned to theories that presuppose a grounding consciousness.  Some of these theories, for example creationism or intelligent design, are associated with irrational, nonscientific, mythological, constituency-based belief systems.  It is assumed that choosing a nonconsciousness position enhances theorizing capabilities and that a consciousness position is associated with mythology and a respect for non-sense-based conclusions.  Dawkins’ evangelical atheism is an example of evolutionary psychology’s tendency to lump together mythology-based faiths or beliefs with nonmythology, trans-consciousness hypotheses.

The second presupposition revolves around evolutionary psychology’s unstated presupposition that patrifocal social structure is the default social frame of human evolution.  Matrifocal social structure is rarely rejected; it is just ignored.  David Buss has done sterling work exploring mating conventions among people living in patrifocal social structure.  Studies cited in many works by evolutionary psychologists ignore matrilineal or matrifocal examples.  If it can be assumed that matrifocal social structures have little relevance when it comes to human evolution, then this omission makes perfect sense.

Scientists, as liberal as they may seem, are often chauvinists when it comes to spirituality and sexuality.  Usefulness is the foundation of science and technology.  A theory or intervention is evaluated according to how well it potentially serves when it comes to offering useful solutions.  Nevertheless, science often behaves as if compelled to treat certain classes of information as not worth evaluating according to the usefulness criterion.  At the root of rejecting both the spirituality and sexuality presuppositions is the male transcendental god.

Most Western contemporary theorists are living in the adolescence of their science.  Science was raised under the wing of men believing in a single, male, omniscient being.  To adequately map the reality they discovered, god, as they knew him, had to be removed.  The stories were obviously stories.  Every time god was referenced to explain something unexplainable, theorists could reveal a nongod solution.  A belief in a male, transcendent god with motivations and intentions was not useful.  He was rejected.

But when they threw out the baby and the bathwater, they failed to note that the bathwater was evidencing qualities that might be useful.

It was not that spirituality or religion without the accoutrements of spirituality or religion (mythology, non-sense-based conclusions) might explain the unexplainable.  The issue was whether presupposing interconnection among presupposed unconnected parts might offer useful theories and useful interventions.  The reasonable compulsion to reject the transcendent male god was accompanied by a compulsion to reject the potentially useful presupposition of connection.  Yet, while rejecting the male god, we retain the social orientation that placed the male god in that position.  Many scientists behave in an astonishingly patrifocal manner.  Scientists, like adolescents, can reject the behavior of their parents while at the same time embracing the parents’ presuppositions.  Rejecting a male god, they still stratify, separate and withhold.  Hierarchy, segregation and secrecy are hallmarks of a patrifocal society.

It will take time before we realize that there is an integral connection between social structure and theorizing or the stories we tell.  Right now we are still reeling from the often toxic environment engendered by a patrifocal god.  Pecking orders, separation and confidentiality are not the default frames of a religion or a society.  The alternative is coming at us fast.  With the arrival of a horizontal, diverse and transparent society, not only will the female be elevated to equal status, but theorizing will acquire a feminine perspective.

The bathwater will be investigated for its potential usefulness, bathwater illustrating a premise that presupposes flow.


Name (required)

Email (required)


Share your wisdom